Do you support protectionism?

[TPIG]

It's a firm no for me. Protectionism is a sugar-coated way to take money (and buying power) from taxpayers and give it to politically well-connected industries/companies.  We should help our companies by lowering their taxes and reducing red tape, thus making them more competitive.

What do you think?

[TheSaint250]

I don’t support pure protectionism, but you can’t have simply either-or.

[Lechasseur]

I don’t support pure protectionism, but you can’t have simply either-or.

Agreed, I've evolved on the issue, I used to be a protectionist but now what I support is fair trade.
You need a common sense middle ground.

[TheSaint250]

I don’t support pure protectionism, but you can’t have simply either-or.

Agreed, I've evolved on the issue, I used to be a protectionist but now what I support is fair trade.
You need a common sense middle ground.

I like the idea of free trade, but absolutely pure free trade isn’t sustainable. Like you said, we need a middle ground, but it is hard to balance the two.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Yes. (From a community destroyed by NAFTA)

[TheSaint250]

Yes. (From a community destroyed by NAFTA)

How so? I would like to know, if you do not mind. We don’t often get to hear stories about NAFTA failing and usually hear about how (wrongly) perfect it is.

[TPIG]

I don’t support pure protectionism, but you can’t have simply either-or.

Agreed, I've evolved on the issue, I used to be a protectionist but now what I support is fair trade.
You need a common sense middle ground.

But what does that mean exactly? Fair-trade, at least from what I've seen, seems to be a catch-all term that can mean anything. Some say fair trade is having no trade deficit, some say it's only trading with countries that protect environmental and labor standards, and even some still use it as a buzz word to push through hard line protectionism. What exactly do you mean by it?

[TheSaint250]

I don’t support pure protectionism, but you can’t have simply either-or.

Agreed, I've evolved on the issue, I used to be a protectionist but now what I support is fair trade.
You need a common sense middle ground.

But what does that mean exactly? Fair-trade, at least from what I've seen, seems to be a catch-all term that can mean anything. Some say fair trade is having no trade deficit, some say it's only trading with countries that protect environmental and labor standards, and even some still use it as a buzz word to push through hard line protectionism. What exactly do you mean by it?

In a more generalized way (Lechasseur can go into his definition), I would say it is the support of free trade but being more wary in not pursuing certain trade deals that could have damagin effects. It’s not a complete rejection of free trade, but it is not also a full rejection of protectionism.

[Lechasseur]

I don’t support pure protectionism, but you can’t have simply either-or.

Agreed, I've evolved on the issue, I used to be a protectionist but now what I support is fair trade.
You need a common sense middle ground.

But what does that mean exactly? Fair-trade, at least from what I've seen, seems to be a catch-all term that can mean anything. Some say fair trade is having no trade deficit, some say it's only trading with countries that protect environmental and labor standards, and even some still use it as a buzz word to push through hard line protectionism. What exactly do you mean by it?

In a more generalized way (Lechausser can go into his definition), I would say it is the support of free trade but being more wary in not pursuing certain trade deals that could have damagin effects. It’s not a complete rejection of free trade, but it is not also a full rejection of protectionism.

There you go, ideally with countries that protect labour and environmental standards. And also ideally it would be better not to have a trade deficit, but of course that isn't always possible.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I've soured towards globalism, but tariffs rarely produce good outcomes in practice.

I'm mostly against new trade deals as they are negotiated in the naked pursuit of economic "growth," while doing nothing to account for collateral damage to the environment and culture.

[Santander]

I oppose free trade with bad people, and support free trade with good people.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Not really, aside from in immature economies as a temporary way to industrialise (e.g. countries that are too dependent on raw material export trying to form a secondary industry). Certainly not in the developed world.

[TPIG]

I don’t support pure protectionism, but you can’t have simply either-or.

Agreed, I've evolved on the issue, I used to be a protectionist but now what I support is fair trade.
You need a common sense middle ground.

But what does that mean exactly? Fair-trade, at least from what I've seen, seems to be a catch-all term that can mean anything. Some say fair trade is having no trade deficit, some say it's only trading with countries that protect environmental and labor standards, and even some still use it as a buzz word to push through hard line protectionism. What exactly do you mean by it?

In a more generalized way (Lechausser can go into his definition), I would say it is the support of free trade but being more wary in not pursuing certain trade deals that could have damagin effects. It’s not a complete rejection of free trade, but it is not also a full rejection of protectionism.

There you go, ideally with countries that protect labour and environmental standards. And also ideally it would be better not to have a trade deficit, but of course that isn't always possible.

Well why though? Nations with negative current account balances (a trade deficit) have positive capital accounts (a surplus of investment in our country). That new capital creates makes American businesses better off.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Yes. (From a community destroyed by NAFTA)

How so? I would like to know, if you do not mind. We don’t often get to hear stories about NAFTA failing and usually hear about how (wrongly) perfect it is.

I'm from a mill town. At its peak the textile mille employed over 10K people (Our total population now hovers barely above 40K people). NAFTA opened up the market to cheaper textiles from maquiladoras, which is great for the consumers who save a few dollars on their bed sheets ... but it also means those 10K jobs in Danville go away. After shedding jobs for a decade due to market share collapse, the mill completely closed. That big decrease in manufacturing jobs hollowed out the middle class, we lost population, which led to fewer service jobs and a real estate market collapse pre-2007. Now all we really have are the poors who can't leave and a few thousand lucky souls employed at the tire factory. Poverty is higher, our crime rate has shot up, property values are still in the toilet, racial animosity has been greatly exacerbated by the economic dislocation, and we have generations of unemployed factory workers who at most have a GED ... but hell, at least those unemployed poors can get bedsheets for 6 dollars cheaper.

I don't deny that free trade leads to higher net utility in the economy, I just think the diffuse benefits aren't worth the concentrated costs. And as a nationalist, I see no problem in placing the interests of Americans ahead of foreigners when negotiating trade deals.

[Lechasseur]

I don’t support pure protectionism, but you can’t have simply either-or.

Agreed, I've evolved on the issue, I used to be a protectionist but now what I support is fair trade.
You need a common sense middle ground.

But what does that mean exactly? Fair-trade, at least from what I've seen, seems to be a catch-all term that can mean anything. Some say fair trade is having no trade deficit, some say it's only trading with countries that protect environmental and labor standards, and even some still use it as a buzz word to push through hard line protectionism. What exactly do you mean by it?

In a more generalized way (Lechausser can go into his definition), I would say it is the support of free trade but being more wary in not pursuing certain trade deals that could have damagin effects. It’s not a complete rejection of free trade, but it is not also a full rejection of protectionism.

There you go, ideally with countries that protect labour and environmental standards. And also ideally it would be better not to have a trade deficit, but of course that isn't always possible.

Well why though? Nations with negative current account balances (a trade deficit) have positive capital accounts (a surplus of investment in our country). That new capital creates makes American businesses better off.

It depends which businesses, and workers aren't necessarily better off but afterwards if a country's manufactoring sector is really not productive then those activities will have to be done in other countries (which is different from a lot of trade deals where jobs are sent over to places where workers are paid peanuts, which is why I said you need labour protections).

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Not really, aside from in immature economies as a temporary way to industrialise (e.g. countries that are too dependent on raw material export trying to form a secondary industry). Certainly not in the developed world.

[TheSaint250]

Yes. (From a community destroyed by NAFTA)

How so? I would like to know, if you do not mind. We don’t often get to hear stories about NAFTA failing and usually hear about how (wrongly) perfect it is.

I'm from a mill town. At its peak the textile mille employed over 10K people (Our total population now hovers barely above 40K people). NAFTA opened up the market to cheaper textiles from maquiladoras, which is great for the consumers who save a few dollars on their bed sheets ... but it also means those 10K jobs in Danville go away. After shedding jobs for a decade due to market share collapse, the mill completely closed. That big decrease in manufacturing jobs hollowed out the middle class, we lost population, which led to fewer service jobs and a real estate market collapse pre-2007. Now all we really have are the poors who can't leave and a few thousand lucky souls employed at the tire factory. Poverty is higher, our crime rate has shot up, property values are still in the toilet, racial animosity has been greatly exacerbated by the economic dislocation, and we have generations of unemployed factory workers who at most have a GED ... but hell, at least those unemployed poors can get bedsheets for 6 dollars cheaper.

I don't deny that free trade leads to higher net utility in the economy, I just think the diffuse benefits aren't worth the concentrated costs. And as a nationalist, I see no problem in placing the interests of Americans ahead of foreigners when negotiating trade deals.

Man, I’m sorry to hear that

[Santander]

Yes. (From a community destroyed by NAFTA)

How so? I would like to know, if you do not mind. We don’t often get to hear stories about NAFTA failing and usually hear about how (wrongly) perfect it is.

I'm from a mill town. At its peak the textile mille employed over 10K people (Our total population now hovers barely above 40K people). NAFTA opened up the market to cheaper textiles from maquiladoras, which is great for the consumers who save a few dollars on their bed sheets ... but it also means those 10K jobs in Danville go away. After shedding jobs for a decade due to market share collapse, the mill completely closed. That big decrease in manufacturing jobs hollowed out the middle class, we lost population, which led to fewer service jobs and a real estate market collapse pre-2007. Now all we really have are the poors who can't leave and a few thousand lucky souls employed at the tire factory. Poverty is higher, our crime rate has shot up, property values are still in the toilet, racial animosity has been greatly exacerbated by the economic dislocation, and we have generations of unemployed factory workers who at most have a GED ... but hell, at least those unemployed poors can get bedsheets for 6 dollars cheaper.

I don't deny that free trade leads to higher net utility in the economy, I just think the diffuse benefits aren't worth the concentrated costs. And as a nationalist, I see no problem in placing the interests of Americans ahead of foreigners when negotiating trade deals.

Man, I’m sorry to hear that

Is this the economic equivalent of "thoughts and prayers"?

[The Govanah Jake]

As others have said I support Fair Trade as a more nuanced version of Protectionism. I support Protections and Regulations on trade deals that could negatively affect american manufacturing and industry while also willing to support negotiated trade deals with other nations. So for example, the TPP which is clear in its promotion of foreign industry and country's in exchange for American ones while already being flawed in numerous ways including mostly benefiting larger national and multi-national corporations. This is a example of a trade deal which in my opinion is so flawed that it should just be abandoned by the United States. Or how about NAFTA which while has been mostly positive for the United States as a whole, has negatively affected many industrial jobs and American based smaller company's to some extreme levels. This is a example of a deal which i believe should not be gotten rid of like the TPP however instead extremely negotiated while protecting American Jobs by affirming trade barriers between the separate nations keeping them separate, individual nations that are willing to trade fairly between themselves. We should also take a more precise focus on the Unions and hear the positions before going along with any deals which would impact that Union's base, as we have seen the affects and neglecting said unions since the 1980s of international economic liberalism. Overall in trading i support a American first attitude in which the United States should look at national and international trade deals in the sense of: will it hurt the american manufacturer, laborer, or consumer and if so, and its not too flawed, how can we fix it. Also i support a higher import tariff for foreign competitors while keeping around the same on Export tariffs abide maybe a little higher.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

No way!  The economics are simple here.  Unrestricted free trade makes everyone better off by allowing all parties to specialize.

[TheSaint250]

Yes. (From a community destroyed by NAFTA)

How so? I would like to know, if you do not mind. We don’t often get to hear stories about NAFTA failing and usually hear about how (wrongly) perfect it is.

I'm from a mill town. At its peak the textile mille employed over 10K people (Our total population now hovers barely above 40K people). NAFTA opened up the market to cheaper textiles from maquiladoras, which is great for the consumers who save a few dollars on their bed sheets ... but it also means those 10K jobs in Danville go away. After shedding jobs for a decade due to market share collapse, the mill completely closed. That big decrease in manufacturing jobs hollowed out the middle class, we lost population, which led to fewer service jobs and a real estate market collapse pre-2007. Now all we really have are the poors who can't leave and a few thousand lucky souls employed at the tire factory. Poverty is higher, our crime rate has shot up, property values are still in the toilet, racial animosity has been greatly exacerbated by the economic dislocation, and we have generations of unemployed factory workers who at most have a GED ... but hell, at least those unemployed poors can get bedsheets for 6 dollars cheaper.

I don't deny that free trade leads to higher net utility in the economy, I just think the diffuse benefits aren't worth the concentrated costs. And as a nationalist, I see no problem in placing the interests of Americans ahead of foreigners when negotiating trade deals.

Man, I’m sorry to hear that

Is this the economic equivalent of "thoughts and prayers"?

?

But to add on, I do hope that NAFTA re-negotiations occur and lead to a revitalization of your town, Mr. Reactionary.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Not really, aside from in immature economies as a temporary way to industrialise (e.g. countries that are too dependent on raw material export trying to form a secondary industry). Certainly not in the developed world.

[vanguard96]

No way!  The economics are simple here.  Unrestricted free trade makes everyone better off by allowing all parties to specialize.

Agree. I even would go so far as to do it unilaterally as Hong Kong has.
The place has very little value aside from its port and location as a gateway to China. Yet, now there are talks about protectionism to help native Hong Kongers. I suspect if they ended up adding protections their relative power would decline.

[James Monroe]

Free trade all the way. Helps created a more diverse workforce, helps the common man by making prices cheaper, allows immigrants to access to our country simpler. Protectionism has crippled the economy and is xenophobic on preventing immigrants from living here. A true progressive would advocate for a more advanced globalization.

[Dr. MB]

No way!  The economics are simple here.  Unrestricted free trade makes everyone better off by allowing all parties to specialize.

And it also outsources American jobs overseas because the companies can pay lower wages.

U.S. should not renegotiate, but withdraw completely from NAFTA.